Yesterday, the publicist for America’s Stonehenge demanded that I take down my review of an America Unearthed episode about the site because, among other things, I had mentioned that archaeologists have noted that many of the stones at the site have been moved into reconstructed positions, making it difficult to ascertain whether alleged alignments at the site were original or the product of restoration work (accidental or on purpose). Publicist Mark Eddy took issue with this and wrote that it was “inaccurate” to suggest that past owners of the site had moved the stones. As I mentioned yesterday, this was not my opinion but that of several archaeologists who visited the site over the past four decades.

Archaeologist Ken Feder helpfully provided me with some photographs that demonstrate that the stones are not in the position they were in when William Godwin documented the site for his 1946 book The Ruins of Great Ireland in New England. Using these as a guide, I researched some additional photographs that help to tell the story.

The first photograph is of the “Sacrificial Table” as it appeared in Godwin’s 1946 book.

This photograph, from the invaluable America’s Stonehenge: Documentation, Analysis, Interpretationwebsite (which documents changes made specifically by Goodwin and others), shows that the supposed table, once flush with ground level, later appeared suspended on stone “legs” sometime prior to 1960, either in the last years Goodwin owned the site or in the first years when Robert Stone operated the site under lease from Goodwin. (Goodwin, as noted in the comments below, claimed to have found the legs in situ while excavating beneath the stone.) Stone would later buy the site outright, and it is currently owned by his son Dennis.

The next photograph is from Feder’s visit to the site in the 1970s, two decades after the Stone family took over the site. Note that the so-called table has had an upright stone placed alongside it.

The final photograph is from Feder’s return trip in the 1990s. Note that the large upright stone to the side of the so-called table has been removed. This is what the table looked like when I visited around the same time.

This ought not to be surprising since Goodwin himself took many photographs of the site before his restoration work began, which allows us to see some of the changes that have been made both by him and the Stone family. Eddy, for example, failed to note that in the 1980s his boss’s family constructed a brand new “ancient” stone wall extending from the right side of the so-called “Oracle Chamber” entrance. This wall does not appear in an early 1900s photograph of the site from before Goodwin’s ownership.

Behold the difference as the same feature appears in a modern image posted to the TripAdvisor.com website. (But note that some of the topmost slabs were removed in the early 1900s due to quarrying activity.)

Let’s do one more! This is a late 1930s photograph of the so-called East-West chamber as it appeared in Goodwin’s 1946 book.

I think it should be fairly obvious that the site is not in the same condition it was in when William Goodwin bought the place, or when he sold it to Robert Stone. Consequently, there is sufficient reason to require extra proof that a given stone was in its current position in ancient times in order to support the claim that any alleged astronomical alignment is genuinely ancient and purposeful.

Love it, betcha that felt satisfying to write. If this was a rap battle, you would get to do a mic drop.

Reply

Scott Hamilton

12/31/2015 12:47:41 pm

I just don't understand how people managed to move the stones around without the help of alien technology.

Reply

Duke of URL

12/31/2015 01:02:20 pm

Hahahaha... Scott, you win today's Internet!

Reply

Shane Sullivan

12/31/2015 01:02:55 pm

Presumably they used the ice age construction equipment visible on the lid of Pakal's tomb.

Reply

Andy White

12/31/2015 01:09:59 pm

That's a submarine, dummy.

Shane Sullivan

12/31/2015 01:44:58 pm

Yeah, well...so is this!

http://tinyurl.com/j6wenpe

Jim

9/21/2016 07:59:18 pm

The person in that photo is so obviously Nephilim, its not even funny!

Jose S

12/31/2015 01:20:08 pm

Hmmmm.....
It looks like a conspiracy...
No one has moved those stones since the Ancient.Brits/Irish/Phoenicians/Aliens place them there.
The pictures shown above were doctored.
I know this because
1- I've never been to the site.
2- the only possible explanation is the photos were tampered with.
3- How do I know this? I have a double honorary masters in photography and archeology bestowed upon me a few weeks ago by my drinking buddies while talking about the site.
4- Jason is known to be part of a cabal of mainstream historians, scientists, anthropologists, etc., that doesn't want the truth to be known.
5- The owners and SW say the stones haven't been moved! This should be more than enogh to prove it.

:-) lol (-:

Note to Jason:

What a way to close to 2015! With a homerun!!

Also,

Jason, I want to wish you a very prosperous 2016!!!

Keep up the good work!!!

Reply

Weatherwax

12/31/2015 01:32:34 pm

Without knowing the specific claims of this site, intentional astronomical alignments at large sites with lots of rocks and buildings can be a problem to establish. Lots of things are going to line up with different features just by coincidence.

Reply

lurkster

12/31/2015 01:50:14 pm

That 1946 shot from Godwin's book sure is a wonderful shot of a classic lye stone lying on the ground as they typically were when used for soap-making.

"the supposed table had been moved onto stone “legs” sometime prior to 1960"

Goodwin claims otherwise in 'Great Ireland':
“Until that last summer we had always presumed that the great Sacrificial Stone was lying on the slope of the Y cavern mound. So we removed all the fine particled humus from beneath this flat table and sifted it. To our astonishment, however, we found that the stone did not rest on the ground for support but on four low pillars of sectional stone legs directly on level bedrock! What is more amazing is that underneath that sacrificial stone and hidden at the back of it, was the outside mouth of the 5” x 5” square passage through the thick stone walls of the Y cavern …” (Goodwin 1946, 203-4, and see photo p83)

"In making soap the first ingredient required was a liquid solution of potash commonly called lye.

The lye solution was obtained by placing wood ashes in a bottomless barrel set on a stone slab with a groove and a lip carved in it. The stone in turn rested on a pile of rocks. To prevent the ashes from getting in the solution a layer of straw and small sticks was placed in the barrel then the ashes were put on top. The lye was produced by slowly pouring water over the ashes until a brownish liquid oozed out the bottom of the barrel. This solution of potash lye was collected by allowing it to flow into the groove around the stone slab and drip down into a clay vessel at the lip of the groove."

http://www.alcasoft.com/soapfact/historycontent.html

Reply

Ken Feder

1/1/2016 04:40:51 pm

The grooved stone at America's Stonehenge may be a lye stone but I think a more likely possibility is that it's a cider press bed stone. Check out the photo on the Old Sturbridge Village web site: http://resources.osv.org/collections/collection_viewer.php?N=11.13.2.
The book cited at the end of the discussion, Cidermaking by Michael Quinion has amazing photos of a working cider mill with a setup using a stone that's a very good match for the sacrificial table at America's Stonehenge.

Reply

Gary

1/1/2016 11:12:44 pm

I agree. I also found this:

"Lye stones are distinguished from apple cider press stones by the size of the groove. Cider presses produced a large volume of liquid and required a wider and deeper groove to handle the volume. Lye stones have a shallower and narrower groove because they handled a lower volume of liquid."

http://www.stonestructures.org/html/groovedstones.html#Lye

There may still be evidence in the soil surrounding it, but I'm sure the owners would not allow anyone to look for it.

CFC

1/1/2016 09:56:59 am

Great work Jason (and Ken Feder).
Happy New Year and keep up the good work!!!

Reply

Ken

1/1/2016 10:43:37 am

Living next door to 'Stonehenge' I've been there many times and pretty much convinced it's less than 200 years old.

However, its important as a skeptic not to cherry pick contrary examples in debunking at the expense of truly mysterious features which deserve legitimate investigation.

The Salem rockpile is not one of these cases, but I'm just saying...

Reply

Mike Jones

1/1/2016 01:06:06 pm

The two pictures [above] of the "East-West Chamber" shows just how disingenuous these people are. I would love to hear Mr. Eddy's response to this evidence, but I doubt we ever will.

Reply

Bob Jase

1/1/2016 01:29:23 pm

Sure some stones have been moved but it was done by the ghosts of the ancient Phoenicians who originally built the site and therefor not as reconstruction but as mere modification.

Reply

Will

1/1/2016 04:37:58 pm

I just don't get how people actually think this is anything other than a lye-leaching stone or an apple cider mill press.

I must admit that I could not identify it before reading your analysis, but once someone said it looks like a "soap making stone" in 2 seconds someone could find examples to support the idea.

Seriously though, I typed in "lye leaching stones" and tons of other examples show up that look nearly identical in size and design.